Future of STS

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I never say in my posts that "a capsule can't fly"... but I've read MANY "expert's posts" claim that a new spaceplane "CAN'T FLY" due to aerodynamic problems, mass/volume, reentry problems, etc. etc. etc... despite a big spaceplane called Shuttle have already made 100+ flights... around TEN times more than Apollo and FIVE times more than (planned) orbital/moon CEV flights in next 20 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[davebowman]

I'm sure the shuttle will be retired as planned. But the question is will there be a replacement capable of carrying the same kinds of loads into orbit as the shuttle? I'm a bit surprised how contentious the arguments seems to be between those who support the shuttle -- or any winged spacecraft -- and those who hate it. The shuttle never lived up to its promise, but it has served a valuable purpose. And although the ISS is a disappointment (well, all right, a disaster), someday we will need a large space station and a way to transport its components into space. A successor to the shuttle will be necessary. <br /><br />Collin R. Skocik

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />if you consider that Shuttles was (and is) the FIRST and ONLY working spaceplane designed with '70s old technology... it's a GIANT and INCREDIBLE success!<br /><br />with only two accident (both due to problems at lift-off), 100+ flights, 600+ astronauts and near 2000 tons of payload... it will be UNSURPASSED in next 30+ years... no other vehicles (excluding a better shuttle) will do a similar work... certainly NOT the CEV...<br /><br />a better made shuttle, built with to-day's technology and shuttles' experience in mind, may have INCREDIBLE flights' records... it may fly like a DC3... and, the next shuttle, like a 747...<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />probably the cost to finish the ISS may be only around $20-30 billion but they may be sufficient to design a new shuttle and start design a new space station<br /><br />the only reasons to finish the ISS are...<br /><br />1. a political reason... the international commitment to do it, and...<br /><br />2. a psychological reason... they want to finish the ISS to DON'T ADMIT that its design (and the billions spent) was a GIANT (international!) mistake...<br /><br />but I don't suggest to close the ISS... it can be used "as is" for many purposes with onnly a few maintenance... some upgrades (solar panels, experiments, re-orbit engine, new docking ports, etc.) and resupply sent with Progress and new rockets+tugs... and crew rotation (made with Soyuz, CEV, Kliper, Shuttle, Shenzhou, etc.)<br /><br />my opinion is that ISS is "already ready"

 

[mlorrey]

I won't say the ISS is a mistake. Any infrastructure put in orbit and kept in orbit is in no way a mistake. <br /><br />Now, if you want to talk about mistakes, throwing 114 STS external tanks into the ocean was a mistake of monumental proportions, possibly the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars in US history outside of the welfare system.<br /><br />Building a Shuttle as it is, was a mistake of huge proportions.<br /><br />The only mistake with the ISS was refusing to build the CRV that proved itself capable, so that the ISS could be fully staffed. Running a space station on a skeleton crew is a waste, but only a lesser waste compared to spending those tax dollars on some government welfare program that doesn't result in space infrastructure. Keeping the ISS around long enough to sell it to a private venture with orbital capability of its own, is smart real estate practice.

 

[carp]

"The ISS has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that internationalization of space missions increases the cost of space exploration exponentially. The US can expand the frontiers of space, better, faster, cheaper, without international aid"________________ Im Italian,and agree with you.

 

[askold]

mlorrey's absolutely right - NASA's become a full employment program for engineers that couldn't make it in the private sector.<br /><br />The inevitable conclusion of such programs is to create a never-ending sequence of projects that don't exactly finish and don't exactly fail either.<br /><br />It's the oldest trick in the book. It's amazing that the country is falling for it.

 

[mlorrey]

"You of course have no problem with compounding that mistake and making it a bigger mistake. The idea that a private investor is going to invest in the ISS is absurd when dozens of other Station designs can be implemented at a mere fraction of the cost. www.bigelowaerospace.com for instance. "<br /><br />What makes you think a private investor would even have to pay 1/10th the cost of the ISS to take it over? At this point, the ISS is up there, and Bigelow is not, so as far as the rules of real estate go, ISS has the location, location, location, and Bigelow is just a big blow until he gets hardware on site and operational, with a transportation system for paying customers and cargo. Someone buying the ISS would have half that problem solved immediately, and with a contract to buy a regular supply of Soyuz capsules, they'd be in business 6-10 years before Bigelow, while the tourist trade is still earning $10-20 million per sucker.

 

[haywood]

Oh I see Carp...you're saying that the US could have built the various RMS systems better and cheaper than Canada?<br /><br />Good luck!<br />

 

[subzero788]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> From Europe, all we here is 60s era propaganda from USSR's post-bono propagandists, defunct fakes like Noam Chomsky, a guy who is adored because he was awarded a professorship in linguistics at MIT based on a theory that has long since been proven to be nothing but bunk. A washed up communist has-been given a bogus linguistics theory by the Soviet KGB who was propped up and sent over by communists distributed across Eurasia to woo America's most prestigious academic establishments. How this man maintains his professorship despite the fact that the foundation for which his professorship was earned has collapsed as totally bogus is beyond comprehension.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> What has this got to do with space exploration? You're entitled to voice your opinions on the ISS here, but take your political opinions elsewhere.

 

[n_kitson]

/* deleted */

 

[dobbins]

/* deleted */

 

[dobbins]

"Bigelow Modules .."<br /><br />Oh That's real smart!<br /><br />Let's depend on some crackpot that is the biggest financier of Alien Abduction crap! That is just the kind of person we need to be in charge of space stations!<br /><br />Hey Orrery, News Flash! The USSR broke up, the cold war is over. You can catch the breaking news in any history book newer than about a dozen years old.<br /><br />

 

[mattblack]

Not building the CRV (X-38) was a BIG mistake.<br /><br /> />>To think that the ISS is going to achieve anything that is much in the way of an improvement over MIR, Spacelab, Skylab, or unmanned robotic satellites (now with telepresence) is absurd in the utmost extreme.<<<br /><br />Not really true. Skylab's solar telescope array was fantastic, but it's accomplishments have been eclipsed (no pun intended) by SOHO and other spacecraft. Mir bettered Skylab's achievements early on, and ISS already outmasses Mir, carries far more scientific equipment and has done more man hours of science in the 5 years it has been manned than Mir did in it's first 5 years. HOWEVER, if its construction hadn't been interrupted and if ISS had been allowed to expand beyond a crew of 3 it's scientific achievements would eclipse Mir and all the Shuttle Spacelab flights put together in just 2 years of fully crewed and funded operations. But guess what?: Science for ISS is being cut and it may never be fully assembled now, as originally envisioned. It may not get a chance to "strut it's stuff" science-wise, until perhaps private industry vessels, including Bigelow inflatables, get off the drawing board and into space. And, when such modules get filled with science racks and T-Space, Kliper and CEV regularly get up and down, you'll see some progress worthy of a really big facility in low Earth orbit.<br /><br />Like I said on this forum recently: If you wanted to rack up some serious man-tended science hours in space with or without ISS, it would have been good these last few years if there had been 3 or more extended duration 28-day Shuttle double-Spacehab or Spacelab flights per year. Doing science 24 hours a day, seven days a week for nearly a month would take up a heck of a lot of research slack during ISS construction. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[smradoch]

This discussion is &%$#@!. We should be a little bit realistic. STS is going to be retired and next spaceship will be capsule in Apollo style. There is nothing you can do with that. US President has a vision and NASA must fulfil this vision. At least they should try that. <br />US human flights are in crisis because of wrong decisions and because of STS falling short of original specifications. The way out of this crisis is to build a reliable spaceship. NASA has proposed a spaceship (CEV), which could take astronauts safely to LEO, ISS and to the LLO. That’s very good, because STS can’t do that. <br />Clearly NASA will need other ships to do other jobs. To get out from crisis NASA needs CEV and go safely to the orbit. STS can’t do that because it is not safe enough. Even without recent problems it can’t be considered safe enough. <br />When I started this thread the question was:<br />What will happen when the problems with ET insulation continue? Has NASA got a contingency plan or will we watch thousands of NASA engineers playing with STS in hangars for another three years? I hope they will be able to resolve this problem, but it seems to me that engineers are failing. What will the management do? <br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />true... ISS is not a complete mistake... also the Shuttle is not a mistake... only its bad design<br /><br />a new, little and low cost shuttle (with 4-6 astronauts' crew and 3-6 tons of payload) able to fly 10+ times per year may give new life to ISS<br /><br />to-day, many experiments can't be sent on ISS because the Shuttle is too expensive (and grounded) while the Progress is too little<br /><br />I don't think that "privates" can buy the ISS... or (probably) they can... if ISS' price will be VERY dumped

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />despite your opinion about international partners... they have spent billions to build and maintain the ISS<br /><br />my opinion is that the best way for USA is to withdraw from ISS and give FREE the american part of ISS to Europe, Russia and other ISS' international parts as a "refund" for the unfinished work<br /><br />then, NASA may stop ALL Shuttles' flights and save the $19+ billion of last 19 flights planned<br /><br />NASA can use the money saved for its VSE/ESAS plan or (BETTER) to design and build a new, little, safer and cheaper Shuttle for future US orbital plans<br /><br />NASA don't need to have rush to build the new Shuttle, since, in next 20 years, the only US "assembly in space" will be a dozen of CEV-LSAM dockings.........<br /><br />when Europe, Russia (and other old and new "international partners"... like China, India, privates, etc.) will full own the ISS... they may decide how much money to invest with it... if, when and how to upgrade the ISS with new modules... and which kind of old/new, cargo/crew, vehicles/rockets/tugs they can/must use to assemble/upgrade/resupply/crew-rotate the ISS<br /><br />this is the most rational choice for USA, NASA and international partners... unfortunately it will never be adopted...

 

[smradoch]

If you propose smaller shuttle with crew of 4 with cargo about 3t you will need some cheap and responsible rocket to launch it. There is only one cheap rocked recently planned which can be able to do that. Falcon 9. Although this is more or less only paper rocket and smaller shuttle will have to be more or less privately funded. This shuttle can work for LEO but certainly not for Moon mission as it is proposed and will be performed.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I don't propose the "new shuttle" for "moon"... but it is absolutely necessary for future orbital work

 

[smradoch]

Right, so this 'small shuttle' can't compete with CEV but with other LEO ships like Sojuz, Kliper, Shenzou or other future private build spaceships.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />yes... in fact, I hope that NASA, ESA, Russia, China and privates will cooperate in design, build, finance and launch the new shuttle... instead of compete with half-dozen of (old and new) bad designed vehicles... CEV can be built only for moon missions... but, with a new crews' shuttle, NASA may have the choice to build different and better vehicles for moon travels and use the new shuttle for earth-LEO-earth travels before and after moon missions... other "privates" can learn from "new shuttle" technology and experience to build the 3rd generation of shuttles... like happen to-day with Boeing, Airbus, etc.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"CEV can be built only for moon missions... "</font><br /><br />...Ooops! Sir, you let out another steaming pile of BS. Thanks to you Italy will fail to comply with EU nitrate-directive and there will be severe repercussions.

 

[dobbins]

1. NASA dropped the transhab proposal after studies showed it wouldn't result in any cost savings for the ISS.<br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/traodule.htm<br />2. Even if they are a good idea it's still a stupid idea to rely on a UFO crackpot to implement them.<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />it's my opinion, like all my posts

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"2. Even if they are a good idea it's still a stupid idea to rely on a UFO crackpot to implement them."</font><br /><br />Bigelow's UFO beliefs are irrelevant. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>